Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Did Trump Funnel Money Intended for Kids with Cancer into his Own Business?

President Donald Trump allegedly funneled money from his son Eric’s children cancer charity into his own business. Eric Trump has held a golf tournament to raise money for his charity for the past 10 years. As the event takes place at his dad’s golf course, he said the charity could use the course for free, allowing all the donated money to go straight to the children’s fund. However, according to Forbes, the costs quickly soared over the years, making it clear that the golf course was not free.

It just cannot get worse than this: pocketing money from a kids’ cancer charity. https://t.co/8qXpxxdpgQ

— Tina Jordan (@EWTinaJordan) June 6, 2017

“The Trump Organization received payments for its use, part of more than $1.2 million that has no documented recipients past the Trump Organization. Golf charity experts say the listed expenses defy any reasonable cost justification for a one-day golf tournament,” Forbes states. Roughly $100,000 of the donations were funneled into revenue for the Trump Organization, and more than $500,000 were donated to other charities, often benefiting Trump family members. This does not look good for the Trump family, and obviously, a lot of people are outraged.

“Morality is just gone,” says Eric Trump, who Forbes earlier today reported used a charity to (literally) steal money from kids with cancer. pic.twitter.com/4XyZZOdZcw

— Matt McDermott (@mattmfm) June 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Trump Appears to Have a Fake News Problem

It appears that President Donald Trump doesn’t check the news himself but largely relies on what his staff members give him. The problem has become significant enough for White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus to issue a warning during a senior staff meeting, telling people to stop putting things on Trump’s desk. Several times, his staff has reportedly left news stories on his desk that are completely false, such as a 1970’s “article” about a coming ice age, and one from fake news website GotNews.com that claimed deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh was the one leaking information from the White House.

Climate change is an existential threat and Trump’s 2nd most senior Nat Sec aide slips him fake news covers to minimize it. Let that sink in

— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) May 15, 2017

According to administration officials, this practice can have tremendous consequences due to the president’s temper and mood. The wrong story can alter his agenda or lead to a tantrum. However, it seems like staff members think it’s worth the risk, as they know they can easily sway Trump’s opinion.

Priebus warns WH staff to stop slipping Trump Internet hoaxes, because he believes they’re real. https://t.co/lh4XfVBE69

— Steve Silberman (@stevesilberman) May 15, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: May 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

As Deryn Blackwell was dying of cancer, his mother, Callie, sought out something, anything, that could relieve his pain. Finally, after three excruciating years of watching Deryn suffer, she found a potential aid: marijuana.

Now, three years after illicitly providing marijuana to Deryn–his doctor would not prescribe him the drug–Callie claims it saved his life. She reveals Deryn’s story in a new tell-all book set for release next month in Britain titled “The Boy in 7 Billion.”

While Deryn’s story is indeed inspiring, researchers caution that it cannot be taken as evidence that marijuana can treat cancer. Anecdotal tales like Deryn’s exist, but clinical trials have not found concrete evidence that marijuana is an effective cancer treatment. It is also unclear if the cannabis tincture Deryn consumed was the direct cause of his recovery.

“It could have been a number of things,” Emma Smith, a science information manager for Cancer Research UK, told Britain’s online newspaper The Independent. “Perhaps cannabis did help, perhaps it didn’t.”

“Because it’s just one person’s story, without a doctor analyzing all the clinical evidence and comparing him to somebody that didn’t get cannabis, we still don’t know for certain it was the cannabis that helped him.”

Deryn’s ordeal began in 2010 when, at ten-years-old, he was diagnosed with leukemia. Eighteen months later he was diagnosed with a second rare form of cancer.

In an excerpt from Blackwell’s book printed in the Daily Mail, Callie writes:

By 2013, after nearly four years of hospital treatment, it seemed that the only thing left for him were opiate drugs to ease the pain as he reached the end of his life. Like any mother would be, I was desperate to find something to alleviate his suffering.

Marijuana has been shown to alleviate some side effects of cancer, including nausea. But according to the American Cancer Society, studies on cannabinoids have not shown that “they help control or cure the disease.”

Medical marijuana is still illegal in the United Kingdom. The only licensed marijuana-based medicine available is Sativex, which is used to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.

After conducting extensive research on the benefits of marijuana, Callie asked Deryn’s doctor if Bedrocan, a cannabis-based painkiller, would be a better alternative than her son’s “mind-numbing morphine.” The doctor said that while it was an effective painkiller, it had not been tested on children and she couldn’t prescribe it to him.

That’s when Callie and her husband, Simon, decided to take matters into their own hands. Simon traveled to a nearby service station and purchased cannabis illegally from a dealer. Back home, Callie whipped up a tincture that would be compatible for a vaporizer pen, which Deryn would later use when the doctors weren’t around.

“We felt like naughty schoolkids who were having a sneaky cigarette around the back of the bike sheds,” Callie wrote.

Devyn, now 17, made a gradual recovery and is currently attending school and working as a part-time chef of vegan food.

Callie said she’ll probably “never be totally free” of the fear that his cancer will return, but she is confident her son can endure. “I am reminded of my miracle boy every time I look at Deryn and I know deep in my heart that whatever the future may throw at us, we can cope,” she wrote. “We always do.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Mom Credits Marijuana With Saving Son From Cancer appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden launched their new charitable foundation, the Biden Foundation. This will be a continuation of the couple’s work on equal rights, which they focused on during their years in office. The new organization will prioritize fighting cancer, ending violence against women and children, supporting military families, and achieving equal rights for all.

The fight against cancer became particularly important to the Biden family after Joe’s oldest son Beau passed away from the disease in May 2015. The foundation will continue to support the Cancer Moonshot Initiative–the White House anti-cancer effort that Biden headed–which aims to find the cure. Jill Biden is a college professor and will keep working on her longtime goal to increase people’s access to affordable, high-quality education. In a video promoting the new foundation, the former vice president said, “As long as we have a breath in us, we’re going to be working on it.”

Joe and Jill Biden announce The Biden Foundation in new vid, plan to focus on cancer research, violence against women, foreign policy issues pic.twitter.com/z6296Cp8wi

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2017

The foundation’s executive director will be Louisa Terrell, who used to work for Facebook, Yahoo, and for Joe Biden when he was a senator. The board will also consist of several former Biden aides and advisers. It will accept donations from private foundations, donor-advised funds, and corporate foundations, but not from foreign citizens, entities, or any other foreign sources. In a statement the Bidens said:

We look forward to this new chapter where we will continue our work to ensure that everyone—no matter their income level, race, gender, age, or sexuality—is treated with dignity and gets a fair shot at achieving the American Dream.

In the promotional video, Biden also said he has high hopes for the millennial generation, calling it the most open, most tolerant, and most generous generation in American History. He said that we now have the power to change the culture, “Just as we did when we spoke up and said that the only criteria for who you marry should be who you love.”

From fighting cancer to changing the culture on domestic violence — we’re just getting started. Join us: https://t.co/QHaFokMnrZ

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 1, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Joe and Jill Biden Launch Foundation for Equal Rights and Cancer Research appeared first on Law Street.

“I want to live and live longer and I think that in the future they may find a cure for my cancer and wake me up,” a 14-year-old British girl wrote to a judge before her recent death. She said “being cryopreserved gives me a chance to be cured and woken up–even in hundreds of years’ time.” The girl, whose name has not been released for legal reasons won a High Court case, granting her the right to freeze her body after she passed away recently from a rare form of cancer.

Judge Peter Jackson, the presiding judge in the case who specializes in the Family Division of Britain’s High Court, said the case represents a new precedent in the confrontation of science and law. “It is no surprise that this application is the only one of its kind to have come before the courts in this country–and probably anywhere else,” he said. Jackson added that the case is “an example of the new questions that science poses to the law.”

Jackson said his decision was not based on affirming the sound science of cryopreservation–there is not any–but rather on settling a family dispute. The girl’s mother supported her wish to freeze her body, but her father, initially at least, did not. The girl’s parents are divorced, and her father also has cancer. His views eventually shifted. “This is the last and only thing she has asked from me,” he told the judge. The procedure will cost the family 37,000 pounds, which is equivalent to $46,000.

Cryonics, which is an extreme type of cryopreservation, where the entire body is frozen with the hope that it will be re-animated at some point in the future once technology has advanced far enough to cure currently incurable diseases, like cancer. There is no evidence that the procedure could be successful, scientists say, though some still hold out hope.

The girl, whose remains were shipped to the U.S. to undergo the cryopreservation treatment, learned of the judge’s decision 11 days before she passed away, according to her lawyer Zoe Fleetwood. “It brought her great comfort,” Fleetwood told the Associated Press. “She saw this as a chance to be brought back at some stage in the future, but she knew it was speculative.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British High Court Grants Girl’s Wish to be Cryogenically Frozen appeared first on Law Street.

Johnson’s Baby Powder is a staple in many American households. Not only does it soften babies’ bums and prevent diaper rash, but it can also be used by adults as a great deodorizer, dry shampoo, and ant repeller. But before you begin bathing in this magical powdery cure-all, you might like to know that it may also be good for causing cancer, according to a recent Missouri jury ruling.

A St. Louis jury ordered consumer goods manufacturer Johnson & Johnson to pay $75 million to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower products.

The civil suit by Jacqueline Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, was part of a larger case involving 60 plaintiffs. A St. Louis jury awarded $10 million in actual damages and $65 million in punitive damages to Fox’s family after her son, Martin Salter, took over as plaintiff following her October 2015 death. Fox had used Johnson & Johnson’s talc-based products for 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer.

Since Fox’s case was the first to come to trial, it will likely set a precedent for the other cases still to come. According to Reuters, about 1,000 cases have already been filed against Johnson & Johnson in Missouri state court , and another 200 in New Jersey.

In a press conference Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said they were “able to prove statistically that 1,500 women have died every year from the association of talc and ovarian cancer.” The legal team was also able to prove that Johnson & Johnson had prior knowledge that its hygienic talc was unsafe. An internal memo dating back to September 1997 was submitted into evidence, that showed a company media consultant suggesting that “anybody who denies” the risk of using hygienic talc and ovarian cancer is “denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Despite the jury’s outcome, there is still some debate over whether or not talc powder is a direct cause of ovarian cancer. Talcum powder in the past often used talc containing asbestos, which are known carcinogens, whereas modern powder does not. Therefore it’s possible that some people may have developed cancer with contaminated talc in the past.

According to USA Today, Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said the company stands by the talc used in all “global products” and they are “evaluating” their legal options. Goodrich said in a statement,

The recent U.S. verdict goes against decades of sound science proving the safety of talc as a cosmetic ingredient in multiple products, and while we sympathize with the family of the plaintiff, we strongly disagree with the outcome.

The huge dollar sign attached to this payout can only mean good things for the now hundreds of plaintiffs still waiting to go to trial. But if  Johnson & Johnson continues to lose, these damages could have dire consequences for the company.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Johnson & Johnson Ordered to Pay $72 Million in Talc Powder Cancer Case appeared first on Law Street.

Dr. Stanley Riddell’s team at the Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center earned themselves a place in medical history with the research they recently presented at the American Association for the Advancement for Science’s annual meeting. Riddell’s immunology team works with terminal patients. This new treatment engineers a patient’s own T-cells to target and fight back against the blood cancer cells that are attacking them–a major breakthrough in cancer research.

In the most recent trial, U.S. researchers used genetically modified T-cells in 35 terminally ill patients with leukemia, and 94 percent went into remission. Riddell’s T-cell research has only been applied to blood cancer but for the thousands of people in the United States alone suffering from blood cancer, this treatment could be the medical innovation they have waited years for. As with any new treatment, there is cause for caution–the data from this treatment is still being processed which means it still needs to be peer-reviewed and vetted by a host of evaluators. Furthermore, the risk involved in the treatment can be steep. For all the patients who witnessed major positive effects or full remission, there were several patients who were admitted to intensive care due to their treatment.

Cancer treatments are on the whole brutal and exhausting for the patient, but in this case, two of the participants in the study died because of adverse reactions to the treatment. It is important to remember that the patients for this trial were all terminal, which meant they were incredibly weak even as their newly trained T-cells tried to fight against the more aggressive cancer cells. However, members of the medical team believe they can minimize the dangers as time goes on by using lower doses of the therapy. This week, Dr Alan Worsley, from Cancer Research UK, told the BBC that while the field was incredibly exciting, “this is a baby step…the real challenge now is how do we get this to work for other cancers, how do we get it to work for what’s known as solid cancers, cancers in the tissue?”

Even though this research still has a long way to go before it becomes a typical cancer treatment, the attention that the stunning success rate has garnered will no doubt spark a wave of funding for similar T-cell therapy projects. There are dozens of top research institutions working around the clock to test experimental treatments and Riddell’s team is not the only one investigating the efficacy of engineering cells to fight off cancer attacks.

Nonprofits, corporate donors, and governments alike should all take note of this new T-cell trend and adjust cancer research funding accordingly. It can be difficult to divert funding into one particular branch of research when there are so many different forms of cancer that need cures, but if the results of T-cell training research continue to match the success rate of this study, the financial forces behind research hospitals may allocate more resources to this genetic branch of research.  Prioritizing treatment of one type of cancer over another may seem callous, but if this blood cancer treatment can be adapted to solid cancers then we may be looking at an actual cure for the disease as a whole–an opportunity it is difficult to ignore.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Will the New T-Cell Treatment Change the Funding of Cancer Research? appeared first on Law Street.

The Twittersphere was treated to a particularly strange dose of conspiracy theory nuttiness this week when rapper B.oB. went head-to-head with famed scientist Neil DeGrasse Tyson over whether or not the earth is flat. Fellow Law Streeter Alexis Evans published an excellent rundown of the bizarre feud on Tuesday, but it got me thinking: why do so many seemingly insane conspiracy theories exist? After all, we all know that the earth is round, and vaccines don’t cause autism, and that Elvis Presley is probably dead. But then, some conspiracy theories do kind of turn out to true–take, for example, the NSA spying on Americans. So, how do we separate the crazy from the not-so-crazy? Turns out University of Oxford postdoctoral research associate David Robert Grimes has figured out a way, by determining how long it would take conspiracy theories to be debunked.

Grimes essentially set out to answer a simple question: how long would it take for the truth to come out about a conspiracy theory? In order to test the equation he developed, Grimes looked at three conspiracy theories that have turned out to be true, and compared them to four other long-standing theories, in an attempt to figure out how long it would have taken those theories to be debunked, whether intentionally or accidentally.

The three “true” conspiracy theories that Grimes looked at were:

• The NSA’s spying program, which whistle-blower Edward Snowden released information about in 2013.
• The Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a horrifying “clinical study” that involved researchers essentially experimenting on and withholding treatment from 600 African-American male participants.
• The FBI’s use of questionable techniques and pseudo-science in sworn testimony, particularly involving the FBI’s microscopic hair comparison unit, that led to hundreds of wrongful convictions.

According to Grimes, these conspiracy theories were exposed in six years, 25 years, and six years respectively. Grimes’ equation takes into account conditions like how many people would have to be involved in each coverup and the amount of effort the coverups would require. So he was able to mathematically calculate how long it should take a secret to be exposed–whether from a whistle-blower’s actions or accidentally.

Using that calculation, he was able to determine how long it would take four popular conspiracy theories to have been debunked:

• NASA faking the moon landing would have been uncovered in four years.
• Climate change, if only concealed by climate scientists, would have taken 27 years to be debunked. But, if you involved scientific bodies and agencies, the possible cover up time drops to under four years.
• The conspiracy theory that vaccines aren’t safe would take just over three years if drug companies were involved, but much longer (35 years) if it was limited to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization.
• If pharmaceutical companies knew how to cure cancer but were withholding those cures from the public, we would have found out in a little over three years.

According to Think Progress’s Lauren C. Williams:

For a conspiracy to last five years, just over 2,500 people could actively know the truth before it’s revealed. Fewer than 1,000 people can know about it to keep the conspiracy alive for 10 years, and only 125 people could be involved to keep a conspiracy going for a century, the study found.

So, is the world flat? Well, we already know it’s not, but now here’s proof that if it is, it defies what science tells us in more ways than one.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Earth isn’t Flat: The Science of Waiting Out Conspiracy Theories appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine being told you have a potentially fatal disease and going through weeks of expensive treatments and stress. Then you find out you were intentionally misdiagnosed. This is the nightmare that 553 patients are experiencing after Michigan-based Dr. Farid Fata purposely misdiagnosed them with various types of cancer so that he could make more money. The unnecessary treatments they received amounted to 9,000 injections and infusions that cost the insurance companies and patients millions.

One by one, patients confront doctor who falsely diagnosed them with cancer http://t.co/lgC88qbYai pic.twitter.com/EInUjqYHe1

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 8, 2015

For example, Robert Sobieray, a 62-year-old disabled autoworker, was diagnosed with a rare blood cancer by Fata in 2010. Sobieray claims the treatments he endured caused his body to uncontrollably twitch and his teeth to fall out. When Fata was arrested in 2013 for healthcare fraud Sobieray went to another doctor who told him he actually never had the disease. Sobieray stated:

I have so much hatred towards Fata. His name causes an instant headache. He gets my stomach turning. It is hard to explain…the things I want to do to that guy I couldn’t say in public. I hope he gets life.

It’s easy to imagine that the other patients feel as similarly betrayed as Sobieray. As his patients were fearing death, the 50-year-old doctor was running seven upscale clinics and then going home to rest in his comfy Michigan mansion. After undergoing countless aggressive and unnecessary treatments many of his patients now do have health issues. Victims said the cancer treatments Fata gave them caused problems such as hair loss, depression, and high blood pressure, among others.

this doctor lied an told healthy people they had cancer so he could make money….this is the world we live in.

— tayrn. (@_annakae) July 7, 2015

This doctor who lied to his patients saying they had cancer just so he can get more money from treatments, appts, etc makes me sick

— Briana Lafontaine (@brilafontaine) July 7, 2015

In addition to misdiagnosing people, Fata also never told those who were terminally ill that they were dying. This led patients who were close to death to continue buying treatments–making him more money. They thought that their health was improving while it simply was not. “Some of these terminal patients never knew they were dying because of Fata’s lies,” prosecutors stated in a sentencing memo. Cheryl Blades said when her mother Nancy LaFrance had a recurrence of lung cancer, the surgeon told her that chemo would not help. However, Dr. Fata had different beliefs. Blades claims

He told my mother he was going to cure her. He promised her. He said you will see your youngest granddaughter graduate from high school. And none of that happened.

In September Dr. Fata pleaded guilty to health care fraud, money laundering, and conspiring to pay and receive kickbacks. Federal prosecutors are asking that he gets a 175 year sentence, while his attorney is trying to lower it to only 25 years. His hearing began Monday, and may last all week. Several of Fata’s victims have been giving statements in court this week on their changed lives–hopefully Fata’s sentencing will ultimately provide some closure and peace to his victims.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michigan Doctor Misdiagnoses Patients to Make Extra Cash appeared first on Law Street.

Every few years, a scandal breaks where it is discovered that a charity isn’t donating as much as it claims of the funds that it raises. But a new story coming out of Tennessee puts pretty much any other misbehaving charity to shame. A civil complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) revealed that four related charities, all run by members of the same extended family, donated only three percent of the $187 million they raised from 2008-2012. The rest of the money went to items for the family.

The charities are called the Cancer Fund of America, the Breast Cancer Society, the Children’s Cancer Fund of America, and Cancer Support Services. The Cancer Fund of America and Cancer Support Services both appear to be run by the same man, James Reynolds Sr. His son, James Reynolds Jr., runs the Breast Cancer Society, and his ex-wife Rose Perkins heads up the Children’s Cancer Fund of America. In addition to the clear familial connections at the top of each charity, multiple other family members worked for the organizations and were rewarded handsomely.

There have been allegations levied against these charities for a while–CNN went after the Breast Cancer Society, Children’s Cancer Fund, and Cancer Fund of America in 2013, telling potential donors to stay away and calling them fraudulent. But these recent FTC findings will spark serious change. Two of the charities–the Breast Cancer Society and the Children’s Cancer Fund of America–appear to have agreed to disband, but legal action is still moving forward against the other two charities, as well as against James Reynolds Sr.

So, if the money wasn’t going to help cancer patients, where was it going? That’s the truly upsetting part, as it seems that it was going directly into the pockets of the Reynolds family. According to the FTC’s complaint:

[D]onated funds were used to pay for vehicles, personal consumer goods, college tuition, gym memberships, Jet Ski outings, dating website subscriptions, luxury cruises, and tickets to concerts and professional sporting events.

In even more upsetting revelations, the charities didn’t follow through on promises they made to cancer victims, such as volunteering to drive them to appointments, or sending ibuprofen instead of more helpful promised pain medications. So not only were the heads of these organizations taking money from the people who really needed it, they weren’t following through on promises to cancer patients. That’s about as low as you can get.

There are plenty of charities that do truly good work and try to spend as little money as possible. It’s also not too hard to find them, because free tools like “Charity Navigator” exist that evaluate how charities spend their money. It would be nice to assume that every organization that purports to be raising money for good is actually doing so, but it’s a truly sad reality that not every group is honest. The four “charities” run by the Reynolds family certainly proved that, and hopefully they’ll pay the price for their truly reprehensible dishonesty.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Donation to This Cancer “Charity” Funded Online Dating Subscriptions appeared first on Law Street.

The entire environmental movement can be partly attributed to Rachel Carson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring.” Her revelatory research shocked the world in its vivid and ominous accounts of the agriculture industry and the use of pesticides–DDT in particular. The damage to the environment and human health that these things may induce terrified readers and rallied a series of organized movements to raise awareness, address these concerns, and campaign for improvements in these sectors. But toxins and threats to our health endure, and in many other forms.

While DDT itself is now rare in 2015, there is a plethora of pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and other chemicals that are sprayed on crops in abundance. This series of practices has contributed in part to recent movements in favor of more organic foods, grass-fed beef, locally raised products, composting and rooftop gardens, and other methods that speak to a decentralized, localized, and more natural approach to food production. Another potential means of addressing the need to grow crops while pressed to not use so many chemicals is by making changes to the DNA of the plant. For example, a strain of corn might have a gene introduced that makes it immune to a particular disease or attack by certain insects. Yet even in this arena, there is debate as to the healthfulness and safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Food itself is not necessarily the primary source of toxins in the food industry or elsewhere in our day-to-day lives. Recent questions have been raised about poly- and perfluoralkyl substances, or PFASs. These things do manifest themselves in the food industry, mainly as non-stick coatings as can be found in pizza boxes and teflon cookware. Fortunately, the latter product is on the decline. Yet PFASs are also used in carpeting, electronics, sleeping bags, footwear, and a massive assortment of very common products. You can see a more thorough list here.

This line of chemicals is important to making these products durable and useful over a long span of time. But it begs the question: must it necessarily be these chemicals in order to make these products viable? On the other hand, the health concerns are very recent and require much more research in order to determine the degree of their toxicity. Many questions are still up in the air. In the meantime though, some people question their continued use while the thorough answers are sought, considering that doubt has now been cast on them.

Some Studies suggest that these chemicals may linger in the bloodstream and contribute to the development of thyroid disease and kidney cancer. A doctor involved in this study explained that, considering some of these chemicals are related to others that are known to be carcinogenic, one must prove that they are safe before using them. Rather, we have already made the error of implementing them before we had enough information. In this sense, “innocent until proven guilty” does not apply; the product should be absolutely safe before it is used. While studies continue, experts suggest people try to avoid PFASs when possible. But considering how prevalent they are in the market, this is an immense challenge.

The food and consumer sector is not the only source of widespread and unavoidable contaminants. During the course of the several thousand nuclear bomb tests on the planet, particularly in the early stages of the Cold War, a heavily radioactive isotope called Strontium 90 was released in massive quantities. It seeped into the water, soil, and plants, and subsequently found its way into the bodies of human beings. There was so much of it released, it is widely argued that now there is a degree of Strontium 90 embedded in the bones of every human being on Earth, even the ones born long after the spike in nuclear testing ceased. Strontium 90 has been linked to various forms of cancer and leukemia. It is as if to say we have permanently poisoned ourselves and there is nothing we can do to remedy it.

While some of these issues are quite ominous because we are relatively helpless, hopefully some of the other toxic and unhealthy products and chemicals can be swapped for safer alternatives.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Think DDT Was Bad? Toxins Are Everywhere Today appeared first on Law Street.

Skin cancer is the most common type of cancer in the United States. Some forms of skin cancer cause disfigurements and some  are fatal. Either way, skin cancer is nothing to take lightly. There are a variety of factors that account for the prevalence of skin cancer. In recent years, tanning beds have especially come under attack for their part in steadily increasing skin cancer diagnoses in the United States, especially for young people. Fortunately, not all is lost. Researchers are creating innovative skin cancer trials that are seeing encouraging results, while government officials promote state and federal policies to reduce the risks of skin cancer.

What is Skin Cancer?

Skin cancer is defined as:

The uncontrolled growth of abnormal skin cells. It occurs when unrepaired DNA damage to skin triggers mutations, or genetic defects, that lead the skin cells to multiply rapidly and form malignant tumors.

What are the most common types of skin cancer?

Basal Cell Carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer. In the U.S., 2.8 million cases of BCCs were diagnosed in 2010 and those numbers continue to increase. BCCs are “abnormal, uncontrolled growths or lesions” that form in the skin’s basal cells. Basal cells outline the outermost layer of the skin. BCCs resemble open sores, red patches, pink growths, shiny bumps, or scars. In most cases, both long-term sun exposure and short intense sun exposure can lead to the formation of BCCs. In rare instances, other factors like contact with arsenic, radiation exposure, and burn complications can trigger BCCs as well. They are rarely life threatening, but can cause disfigurement and muscle or nerve damage.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) is the second most commonly occurring form of skin cancer. It develops in the skin’s upper layer squamous cells. Approximately 700,000 cases of SCC are diagnosed annually in the United States. Reportedly, between 3,900 and 8,000 cases had fatal results in 2012. In the last thirty years, SCC cases have increased by 200 percent. They generally resemble “scaly red patches, open sores, elevated growths with a central depression, or warts” that may crust or bleed. SCCs are most often caused by ultra violet (UV) exposure whether through daily long-term sun exposure, short intense sun exposure, or tanning beds. With a few exceptions, SCCs occur on parts of the body most often exposed to the sun. Although previously associated with men over 50, SCCs are steadily increasing in women under 30. This phenomenon is largely attributed to tanning beds.

Melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer. Melanoma tumors “originate in the pigment-producing melanocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis.” They resemble moles, and can develop from moles as well. Most often, they are black or brown. The main source of melanomas is intense, sporadic UV exposure regularly leading to sunburn. There is also a significantly higher risk for those with a genetic predisposition toward skin cancer. Melanomas account for 9,710 deaths in the U.S. annually. There are 120,000 new cases diagnosed each year. Early detection is key as the disease is harder to cure when the cancer metastasizes to other parts of the body.

Statistics

Each year there are approximately five million Americans treated for skin cancer. There are more new cases of skin cancer than incidences of breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancer combined. One in five Americans will develop skin cancer in his or her lifetime. There is a 40-50 percent chance that an American who lives to the age of 65 will either develop a BCC or SCC. Approximately 90 percent of non-melanoma skin cancers are developed from UV radiation from the sun. And surprisingly, more people develop skin cancer through tanning than lung cancer through smoking.

One person dies of melanoma every 57 minutes and one in every 50 men and women will be diagnosed with it in his or her lifetime. Melanoma is one of three cancers with an increasing mortality rate (liver cancer and esophageal cancer). It is the most frequently occurring cancer in young adults (25-29) and the second most frequently occurring cancer in young people (15-29).

 What Causes Skin Cancer?

There are a variety of contributing risk factors for skin cancer. Unprotected overexposure to UV radiation from both the sun and tanning beds is the predominant source of skin cancer. This can come from extended daily exposure over the course of a lifetime or short intense spurts that result in sunburn. It is generally the latter that causes melanoma.

As of September 2, 2014, the FDA reclassified tanning beds from low-moderate risk to moderate-high risk devices. Indoor tanning is linked to more than 419,000 skin cancer cases a year in the U.S. A one-time indoor tanning session increases a person’s risk of developing squamous cell carcinoma by 67 percent and basal cell carcinoma by 29 percent. Two to three million teens use indoor tanning beds every year and subsequently increase their risk of melanoma by 75 percent.

Other risk factors include having pale and easily sunburned skin, genetics/family history, workplace exposure to coal tar, creosote, arsenic compound or radium, moles, and previous severe sunburns.

 Skin Cancer Clinical Trials

Through the successes of clinical trials, the FDA has approved seven new treatments for advanced metastatic melanoma cancer since 2011. The new treatment options include targeted therapies and immunotherapies. Targeted therapies “disrupt specific molecules that help cancer cells survive and grow.” Researchers are particularly excited about innovative immunotherapies that restore and enhance the immune system’s ability to fight cancer

National Cancer Institute’s Howard Streicher stated the difference for patients diagnosed with advanced melanoma just 5 years ago and today “is like night and day.”

Targeted Therapies

Targeted therapies disrupt the vital communication route of the signaling pathway in tumor cells known as the MAP kinase or MAPK pathway. The pathway influences “critical functions such as cell division and cell death.” Two proteins involved in the makeup of the MAPK pathway are the BRAF and the MEK. More than half of advanced melanomas have mutations in the BRAF gene. Two of the recently approved FDA drugs specifically target BRAF proteins: vemurafenib and dabrafenib. Each drug was approved after findings from phase III trials that tested patients with tumors that had one or two specific mutations in the BRAF gene. Trial results proved a longer overall survival rate without the disease worsening compared to the drug used as the standard of care at the time.

Immunotherapies

Melanoma is particularly predisposed to inducing an immune response. Researchers realized that tumors can divert T-Cells (particular proteins on the surface of immune cells) and other immune cells from attacking them by manipulating the immune system. The tumors essentially mask themselves from the T-Cells, while “dial[ing] back the immune response.”

One of the new drugs, Ipilimumab, “targets a checkpoint protein on T cells called CTLA-4” that releases the T-cells to attack tumors. This drug came into effect after a phase III trial that tested patients with cancer no longer reacting to FDA-approved and/or common therapies.

The other newly FDA-approved drugs for both targeted and immunotherapies saw similarly encouraging results. Testing is still in a fairly new territory and final results await to be seen. Future inquiries include: what combination of drugs would be most effective and which patients necessitate which specific drugs? Researchers are also looking to further limit side effects. Although most side effects were minor, some included severe skin rashes, diarrhea, colitis, and fatal lung inflammation.

 Law and Policy Regarding Skin Cancer

For starters, the Surgeon General’s office published its most recent Call to Action in 2014 on preventing skin cancer. A Call to Action is a “science-based document to stimulate action nationwide to solve a major public health problem.” The aim of this specific document is to increase skin cancer awareness and to call on various organizations and sectors in the U.S. to become invested in skin cancer prevention. The Call to Action presents a five step plan: promote sun protection in outdoor settings, inform the public about UV exposure, promote policies that advocate skin cancer prevention, minimize side effects from indoor tanning, and “strengthen research, surveillance, monitoring, and evaluation related to skin cancer prevention.” It also emphasizes skin cancer as a major threat toward American youth. It calls for coordination and support from federal, state, and local sectors of the business, health, and educational communities.

In accordance with the Surgeon General’s emphasis on American youth skin cancer prevention, many states have banned indoor tanning for minors. Currently, these states include California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Texas and Vermont. In addition, 42 states regulate indoor tanning by minors in varying ways. For example, Alabama bans indoor tanning for minors below the age of 15. Counties and cities across the country have regulated the activity as well. Howard County, Maryland was the first county to ban indoor tanning for minors under 18.

California has some specific laws that deal with UV safety prevention. Billy’s Bill for Sun Safety requires schools to allow students to wear protective sun gear outside and wear sunscreen without a physician’s note or prescription during the school day. The California Labor Code also allows lifeguards who develop skin cancer while working with a public agency or the California Department of Parks and Recreation to be eligible for workers’ compensation. Lastly, minors under 14 are prohibited from indoor tanning and children between the ages of 14-18 must have a parent or guardian’s written permission.

In New York, aside from regulations for minors, tanners 18 and over must sign a statement acknowledging the dangers of indoor tanning before stepping into the tanning booth. Staff at tanning salons are required to wear protective gear as well. The state also requires sun-safety education and necessary equipment for state employees that spend five or more hours in the sun daily.

Altogether, it seems more and more states are getting on board regarding UV preventative regulation and informing the public.

 Conclusion

Skin cancer is definitely a major health concern in the United States. New clinical research and national legislation are at the forefront of the fight. On the public end, we need to stay informed, help educate others, and take simple preventative measures. By implementing everyday habits we can best fight skin cancer, such as regularly applying sunscreen and wearing proper attire. Moreover, as a society, we need to stop perpetuating the trend that tanned skin in more attractive. But in all, the strides fighting skin cancer look extremely promising and the efforts don’t show any signs of slowing down.

Resources

Primary

The Surgeon General: Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer

Additional

Skin Cancer Foundation: Skin Cancer Facts

American Cancer Society: Skin Cancer Facts

NCSL: Indoor Tanning Restrictions for Minors

NYSCOPBA: Sun Safety

Skin Cancer Foundation: Basal Cell Carcinoma

Skin Cancer Foundation: Melanoma

Skin Cancer Foundation: New York Tightens Tanning Laws for Teens

Skin Cancer Foundation: Skin Cancer Information

Skin Cancer Foundation: Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Skin Cancer: Clinical Trials, Current Policies, and Certain Progress appeared first on Law Street.

E-cigarettes are one of America’s latest trends. Since entering the United States over the last ten years, they have taken the smoking community by storm. To many of us however, they are still somewhat of a mystery. Generally, we have a sense that they are less harmful than cigarettes, but how much less harmful exactly? With any new product, it is hard to foresee long-term health effects. But what do we know so far? Should e-cigarettes and their advertisements be regulated similarly to conventional cigarettes? Read on for a breakdown on what e-cigarettes are, the debates over them, and what regulation is being discussed.

What are electronic cigarettes?

E-cigarettes, also known as e-cigs and vaporizer cigarettes, are used as an alternate method to smoking tobacco via cigarettes, pipes, or cigars. They are battery operated and don’t involve smoke inhalation. The idea is that they bypass tobacco smoke, which can include more than 7,000 different harmful chemicals, many of which are known to cause cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Some of the more well-known poisonous chemicals are cyanide, methanol, and ammonia. In addition, tobacco smoke includes tar, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxide.

Many e-cigs are designed to look like cigarettes and create a similar experience for those who are smoking them. A Chinese pharmacist perfected them in 2003-2004 and they were quickly brought to the international market in 2005-2006. In the current, automatic versions, a user sucks on an end piece to activate a sensor that allows a heating element to vaporize a liquid solution held in the mouthpiece.

Components

E-cigarettes are generally reusable and come in three parts: the Mouthpiece, the Atomizer, and the Battery.

• Mouthpiece (Cartridge): The mouthpiece holds the liquid solution, also known as e-liquid and e-juice. This solution can contain different grades of nicotine and come in a variety of flavors. Some are meant to imitate established cigarette brands, while others are more exotic. The nicotine is most often dissolved in propylene glycol, a food additive. The FDA has labeled propylene glycol as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance.
• Atomizer: This is the heating element that allows for vaporization. It requires replacement every three to six months.
• Battery: The battery is the largest piece of the e-cigarette. It is usually lithium-ion and rechargeable. It catalyzes the heating element and often contains an LED light to showcase activation.

Nicotine 

This product eliminates the inhalation of tobacco smoke, however it is important to note that nicotine itself isn’t very healthy. Although it is not the element of cigarettes that causes cancer, the U.S. Surgeon General has linked nicotine to negative impacts on fetal and adolescent brain development, premature birth, and low birth weight. In rare cases, nicotine can even cause abnormal heart rhythm and atrial fibrillation. It is also known to cause mouth irritation, mouth and throat pain, high blood pressure, and canker sores.

In 2014, a study found that “e-cigarettes with a higher voltage level have higher amounts of formaldehyde, a carcinogen.” This is under debate however due to the methods and nature of the study.

How are conventional cigarettes regulated?

We already know that smoking tobacco is awful for your health. It is to blame for 30 percent of all cancer deaths in the U.S., and accounts for 87 percent of lung cancer deaths in men and 70 percent in women. As a result of these health concerns, cigarettes and their advertisements are heavily controlled. To ascertain whether e-cigarettes should be similarly regulated, we need to understand established cigarette regulations. Here are some recent highlights.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, passed in 2009, authorized the FDC to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products. It requires prominent warning graphic labels for cigarettes and larger text warnings on smokeless tobacco products. It regulates describing tobacco products as “light, low, or mild.” Tobacco companies must yield research on health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of tobacco use. The FDA can conduct compliance check inspections of any establishment selling tobacco products and fine any establishments not adhering to set regulations. It also requires tobacco manufactures to receive an order or exemption from the FDA before it can introduce new tobacco products.

Other parts of the law are focused on preventing advertisements aimed at America’s youth. Cigarettes cannot be flavored. The packaging design and color must be muted. It prohibits tobacco brands from sponsoring “sporting, entertainment, or other cultural events.” It prohibits free samples of cigarettes. And lastly, it prohibits tobacco branding on non-tobacco products.

E-Cigarette Regulation

Currently, there aren’t any regulations concerning the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of e-cigarettes. The only type of e-cigarettes subject to regulation are those designed for therapeutic purposes, as the FDA has authority to oversee those.

Only three states in the U.S. ban e-cigarettes in designated 100 percent smoke-free venues: Utah, New Jersey, and North Dakota. Only 15 states restrict the use of e-cigarettes in other venues. There are 162 local laws that restrict e-cigarettes in various venues, but those appear to be few and far between.

Are e-cigarettes dangerous?

The question remains: should we be worried about e-cigarettes? That’s a debate that’s happening across the country. They do eliminate deadly smoke inhalation, the most detrimental part of smoking cigarettes. However, there are still concerning aspects of e-cigarettes that need to be taken into account.

E-Cigs as a Gateway to Smoking for Young Adults

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a 2014 study entitled, “Electronic Cigarettes and Conventional Cigarette Use Among US Adolescents.” The study was conducted out of a concern over the increasing use of unregulated e-cigarettes by today’s youth. The results came from a sample of U.S. middle and high school students who participated in the 2011 and 212 National Youth Tobacco Survey. It found:

Use of e-cigarettes was associated with higher odds of ever or current cigarette smoking, higher odds of established smoking, higher odds of planning to quit smoking among current smokers, and, among experimenters, lower odds of abstinence from conventional cigarettes. Use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents.

In accordance, a 2013 study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that:

Youth who had never smoked conventional cigarettes but who used e-cigarettes were almost twice as likely to have intentions to smoke conventional cigarettes as those who had never used e-cigarettes.  Among non-smoking youth who had ever used e-cigarettes, 43.9 percent said they have intentions* to smoke conventional cigarettes within the next year, compared with 21.5 percent of those who had never used e-cigarettes.

Additionally, the CDC found that more than 250,000 young adults who have never smoked a cigarette have tried an e-cigarette. That is a triple increase from 2011.

Targeting youth?

If these studies are indicative of reality, then it’s scary to think of how e-cigarette companies are targeting the youth demographic. According to a study published in Pediatrics, “electronic cigarette advertisements increased by 256 percent from 2011 to 2013 and young adult exposure to e-cigarette ads jumped 321 percent in the same time period.“ It found that 75 percent of youth exposure to e-cigarette ads happened through the medium of cable networks like AMC, Comedy Central, and VH1. E-cigarette ads appear on programs like “The Bachelor,” “Big Brother,” and “Survivor,” which were rated amid the 100 highest-rated youth programs in 2012-13.

Other tactics accused of being aimed at young adults include free giveaway samples at music and sporting events, candy flavors, and the glamorization of packaging. All of these actions have been banned for traditional cigarettes companies because of their appeal to the youth.

 Do e-cigs help people quit smoking?

It’s difficult to determine. Studies indicate that they don’t necessarily help stop smoking.

JAMA Study Findings

As previously discussed, the 2014 study published by JAMA found that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit. Specifically with regard to quitting smoking, 88 (out of 949) smokers claimed to start using e-cigarettes at the beginning of the study. In the next year, 13.5 percent of those 88 quit smoking traditional cigarettes. Almost equal percentages of e-cigarette users and solely traditional smokers quit smoking traditional cigarettes within the year. The difference was so slight, it fell within the study’s margin of error.

There are also testimonials, easily found online, that share success stories of smokers that quit with the help of e-cigarettes. These findings and interviews are not to say that it never happens, but it does not seem to be the norm.

Discussions for Future Regulation

The FDA has the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The FDA proposed the “deeming rule” on April 24, 2014 to extend tobacco products to include e-cigarettes. If approved, e-cigarettes would be regulated in the same manner as traditional cigarettes. This includes federal prohibition on free sampling, federal warning label requirements, and age verification requirements for retailers. It is still uncertain when and to what extent the FDA will be empowered to regulate e-cigarettes.

Conclusion

Studies looking into e-cigarette health concerns and their position as a gateway product for America’s youth are still new. The product only reached the U.S. in the last ten years and nothing is 100 percent conclusive. On one hand, smoking an e-cigarette is less harmful to your health than smoking a traditional cigarette. If a traditional smoker quits cigarettes and manages to only smoke e-cigarettes for the rest of his or her lifetime, that is a good thing. In the same respect, if a young adult who would have developed a smoking habit only ever uses e-cigarettes because of their availability, that is also a good thing. On the other hand, e-cigarettes aren’t necessarily safe for your health just because they are safer than cigarettes. And we could eventually find that they definitively promote cigarette smoking. The government and FDA can revisit the subject when there is more conclusive information available.

Resources

Primary

JAMA Pediatrics: Electronic Cigarette and Conventional Cigarette Use Among U.S. Adolescents

FDA: Deeming Tobacco Products to Be Subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: E-Cigarettes

Additional

BeTobaccoFree.gov: Law/Policies

American Cancer Society: Tobacco-Related Cancers Fact Sheet

American Lung Association: General Smoking Facts

American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation: U.S. State and Local Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes

E-Cigarette Research: The Deception of Measuring Formaldehyde in E-Cigarette Aerosol

American Lung Association: Statement on E-Cigarettes

Medical News Today: What Are E-cigarettes?

RTI International: E-Cigarette TV Ads Targeting Youth Increased 256 Percent in Past Two Years

Science News: E-Cigarettes Don’t Help Smokers Quit

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post E-Cigarettes: Should We Treat Them Like Traditional Cigarettes? appeared first on Law Street.

Picture your Netflix homescreen. Besides some errant selections courtesy of your (ahem, tasteless) roommate, it’s pretty much a haven of your unique preferences. Like a doting butler, it recommends you watch “Breaking Bad” since you enthusiastically plowed through every episode of “Orange is the New Black.” Netflix knows you. Or think about Amazon. It’s your data-powered best friend. It recalls your purchase history and movie preferences better than you do. So what if this data-powered framework for knowing you is applied to healthcare? What if your doctor knows you as well as Netflix?

That’s what the Precision Medicine Initiative aims to do–unleash the full power of science and data to make our healthcare system better, more effective, and more specific to individuals and conditions. The new model proposes a system of health care that treats you like the complex human being you are. Just as Amazon cares deeply about your past purchase behavior, the new healthcare system would care about the science-based reasons you’re you: your genes, your lifestyle, and your environment. Instead of pushing purchases, it would use what it knows about you to determine what treatments and preventions work best for your health.

President Barack Obama announced the Precision Medicine Initiative during his 2015 State of the Union Address and since then people have been discussing the pros, cons, and implications. Here’s an overview of precision medicine and what it means for you.

What is precision medicine?

Take a look at the video below for a summary of precision medicine from Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House.

Precision medicine revolves around you. It uses your genes, environment, and lifestyle to determine what treatments keep you healthy.

The Precision Medicine Initiative may be new, but precision medicine has some history. Doctors already use it to treat conditions like cancer and Cystic Fibrosis. Examples of precision medicine in action include processes like blood typing and medications like Imatinib (Gleevec), a drug for Leukemia that inhibits an enzyme produced by certain genes. The new initiative plans to expand the reach of precision medicine to to tackle other diseases.

The plan stems from a  2011 report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report called out a major healthcare weakness: data suggests possible causes of deadly diseases, yet we don’t treat people until telltale signs and symptoms surface. You don’t wait until your friend’s liver is wrecked to stage an alcoholism intervention. Why wait for symptoms of a deadly disease when early risk factors might be available?

Great idea in theory, right? Of course, the execution promises far more complexity. Experts hope that precision medicine is within our grasp now because of recent scientific advances that make it easier to collect and analyze patient data.

Advances That Make Precision Medicine Possible

Advancement 1: New Methods of Uncovering Biological Data

It’s easier to understand patients and tumors on a cellular and genetic level more than ever before because of things like:

• The Human Genome Project, an initiative that aims to map the DNA sequence of the human genome to determine a sort of biological instruction manual for how humans function. The study of the genome is called genomics.
• Proteomics, a discipline that involves studying proteomes, the entire system of proteins in an organism. The goal is understanding changes, variations, and modifications in proteins over time to determine biomarkers for human diseases, especially cancer.
• Metabolomics, a field that leverages analytical tools to discover and quantify metabolites, which are substances produced by metabolism. Studying them provides experts with a glimpse of an organism’s physiological functioning as metabolism is a huge factor in overall health.

Advancement 2: New Tools For Biomedical Analysis

New analytic tools make it possible to decipher the intricate medical data collected by the disciplines above. Computers and programs help to collect, store, and study biological and medical information. Overall, the discipline is called bioinformatics.

Advancement 3: New Digital Health Tools That Make Large Datasets Manageable

I said large data sets. Sound familiar? Yes, we’re talking Big Data. You’ve probably heard enough about it, but it’s actually an amazing thing, especially when applied to healthcare. Take a look at the video below for more information.

From collecting to analyzing, sophisticated data management tools make the Precision Medicine Initiative possible.

Collectively, these advances create the right environment for the unified national effort that the Precision Medicine Initiative proposes.

How will it work?

The President’s 2016 Budget provides $215 million for the program. Four key agencies slated to do a bulk of the work each get a chunk of the budget.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

Project Budget: $130 million.

Task: Recruit a volunteer research cohort and leverage existing data.

The National Institutes of Health must find 1 million American volunteers willing to provide medical records, gene profiles, lifestyle data, and more. While data drives the initiative, you need people to get the data. In addition to this, the NIH will find existing studies and research to build a foundation for the initiative. It’ll collaborate with stakeholders to determine approaches for collecting patient information.

National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Budget: $70 million.

Task: Find better cancer treatments.

The National Cancer Institute will explore precision treatments for cancer by increasing genetically based cancer trials, researching cancer biology, and establishing a “cancer knowledge network” to inform treatment decisions.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Budget: $10 million.

Task: Develop safe, new DNA tests.

The Food and Drug Administration will seek technologies that rapidly sequence DNA and the human genome. Tests should make genetic data collection easier and more standardized.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC)

Budget: $5 million.

Task: Manage the data.

The ONC has a tough job. It needs to figure out how to store, use, access, and exchange all of this medical data without any privacy concerns.

What Precision Medicine Could Mean For You

Here’s Notre Dame’s video on precision medicine in action:

Precision medicine could mean treatments more specific to you. For example, about 55-65 percent of women with mutations in the BRCA1 gene get Breast Cancer; only 12 percent of those without the gene get it. If the gene mutation is discovered, doctors can recommend enhanced prevention measures like increased cancer screenings or prophylactic surgery to remove at-risk tissue.

We hope more precise treatments lead to better outcomes. Using precision medicine, we hope to answer many questions, including:

• How can we treat this better?
• Is there a cure?
• Why does this disease happen in the first place?

The Downsides to Precision Medicine

Of course, the Precision Medicine Initiative has some drawbacks. The sheer amount of time it will take to collect and analyze all of this patient data leads the charge of negative comments. Below are some other downsides.

Interpretability

This article from the New Yorker calls out the problem of interpretability. To quote the author,l Cynthia Graber,

Many doctors are simply not qualified to make sense of genetic tests, or to communicate the results accurately to their patients.

Since doctors will be the sole executors of the initiative, more need to become fluent in the human genetic code. Programs like MedSeq have recognized this need and are already working to make genetic information translatable for practitioners.

The Budget Just Isn’t Enough

Experts say that even the $215 million proposed isn’t enough to meet the initiative’s lofty goals, like recruiting one million patient volunteers. One upside? Money can be saved by incorporating existing data, which the initiative plans to do.

Collecting the Data is Going to be Hard (This is an Understatement) 

If they do save money by integrating data from different studies, keeping the data clean will be hard considering the different time frames, constructs, and controls of various studies.

And as a practicing doctor writing for a New York Times blog points out, the lifestyle factors will be especially hard to study because of some uncooperative and intensely complex patients.

Insurance Companies May Not Pay For It

Precise matching of individuals to disease treatments sounds great, and extremely expensive, especially in the early days. Patients will need even more help determining what treatments suit them.

Hope For the Future

Sorry to bring up Netflix up again, but let’s face it, it’s very good at leveraging data to give you what you want. Consider any of its popular original series. Do you think Netflix just guessed what 50 million subscribers would like? Probably not. It used its massive stores of data to make informed decisions.

Early doctors and researchers puzzled over the symptoms of just a few patients, trying to find patterns, causes, and cures. While they did a fair job with the resources they had, trial and error medicine should be relegated to the less fortunate past. Today we have the power and knowledge to access data that helps doctors make more informed decisions on healthcare treatments.

Precision medicine will be complicated, difficult, time consuming, and who knows what else. But imagine what we can learn. We should be cautious, but we can also dare to hope.

Resources

Primary

White House: Infographic: The Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: FACT SHEET: President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

White House: Precision Medicine is Already Working to Cure Americans: These Are Their Stories

National Cancer Institute: BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

National Cancer Institute: What is Cancer Proteomics?

Additional

Nature: Obama to Seek $215 Million for Precision-Medicine Plan

New England Journal of Medicine: A New Initiative on Precision Medicine

National Academies: Toward Precision Medicine

National Institutes of Health: Precision Medicine Initiative

Nature: U.S. Precision-Medicine Proposal Sparks Questions

Brookings Institution: The Significance of President Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative

New Yorker: The Problem With Precision Medicine

The New York Times: A Path For Precision Medicine

National Human Genome Research Institute: What is the Human Genome Project?

BioTechniques: What is Metabolomics All About?

Bioplanet: What is Bioinformatics?

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Precision Medicine: The Future of Health Care? appeared first on Law Street.

We’re all told that a daily multivitamin supplement packs the same vitamin punch as a varied cornucopia of food. No preparation. Tons of nutrients. Zero calories. No wonder these little short cuts are so popular. Supplements are hard to resist when you’re told they might be the answer to all of your problems.

But are these concoctions too good to be true?

You’ll have to decide for yourself. Here’s what you need to know about vitamin supplements and their long-term effects to get started on your decision.

What are vitamins anyway?

Vitamins aren’t capsules; they’re organic compounds that we need to survive and function. We can’t make them in our bodies; we have to get them from outside sources like food or supplements. Despite what the vitamin aisle of your grocery store might lead you to believe, only 13 recognized vitamins exist.

This infographic from Compound Interest names the 13 vitamins, reveals their alternate names, and summarizes why our bodies need them.

What do they do in our bodies?

We don’t digest vitamins like food, we have to absorb them.

Vitamins A, D, E, and K dissolve in fat, so they need fat to be absorbed. The same stomach acid released to break down fat also breaks down the vitamins so you can absorb them. If a person doesn’t have enough fat in his diet or has digestive problems, he can’t absorb fat-soluble vitamins. On the other end of the spectrum, fat cells store these vitamins long term, and excesses can build up. For example, chronic high intakes of vitamin A can lead to hypervitaminosis A, and symptoms of dizziness, nausea, headaches, and skin irritation.

All of the B vitamins as well as vitamin C dissolve in water. These vitamins are easily absorbed in the bloodstream through water-based blood plasma–no stomach acids required. Unlike fat-soluble vitamins, you can’t store water-soluble ones. Excesses of these vitamins exit the body easily with urine. Since you have no storage system for these vitamins, you have to replenish them often.

How much do we need?

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses Daily Value (DV) as the ultimate guide to how much of each vitamin we need. You’ll see DV on every nutrition label. Don’t worry, they don’t just make them up. They determine DVs using experimental human studies and observational data.

Long-Term Effects of Vitamin Supplements

Studies on the long term effects of multivitamins yield conflicting results, even when the studies focus on the same vitamin. How is that possible? The answer lies in the study’s construction. Conflicting results happen because:

1. The vitamin doses tested were different. A study found vitamin D protects against fractures using a 700-800 IU (international unit) daily dose. If they used a 400 IU dose of vitamin D instead, they might not have seen the same benefits.
2. The study timeframe was different. A study spanning ten years might find benefits that a study over two years missed. Diseases, for example, take a long time to develop. Therefore any benefits a vitamin provides in its prevention would also take a long time to determine.
3. The subjects had different lifestyles. Lifestyle habits, like exercise or smoking, affect disease outcomes and vitamin interactions. If the study fails to control for differing lifestyles, results conflict.
4. The disease or condition was tested at different stages. Vitamins produce results at different times of a disease or condition. Studies show folate supplements might protect against birth defects, but only if taken in the first few weeks of a pregnancy.
5. The results were measured differently. Researchers determine what outcome they’re studying before they begin. They will only pay attention to that outcome and might miss other benefits.

Keep these factors in mind as you read the conflicting good and bad news for vitamin supplements below. Also keep in mind that more studies need to be done on the long-term effects of vitamin supplements, especially as supplement use grows. Currently about half the people in the United States take vitamin supplements; that number may continue to rise.

The Good News For Vitamin Supplements

Most of the good news for vitamin supplements involves specific populations. Here are some groups found to benefit the most from vitamin supplements.

Coronary Heart Disease Patients

Studies have shown that supplements of vitamin E decrease incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of coronary heart disease.

Smokers

Male smokers given a supplement of alpha-tocopherol (a type of Vitamin E) had a 32 percent lower incidence of prostate cancer than those who took a placebo.

Older Adults

One study found supplements of vitamin D reduced bone fractures in older adults. People who took vitamin D had a 22 percent lower fracture rate in general, and a 33 percent lower fracture rate for vulnerable areas like hips, wrists, and vertebrae.

Diabetes Patients

Multivitamin use in people with diabetes might reduce the risk of minor infections. Based on the subjects’ logged reports, all people taking a multivitamin had a lower infection rate than those in the control group. The benefit increased in diabetes patients within the group. Only 17 percent of diabetes patients in the supplement group reported an infection, compared with 93 percent of diabetes patients taking placebos.

Breast Cancer Patients

Women diagnosed with breast cancer who took supplements of vitamins E and C, as well as multivitamins shortly after diagnosis had an 18 percent reduced mortality risk and 22 percent reduced recurrence risk. This study adjusted for multiple lifestyle factors to maintain consistency.

The Bad News For Vitamin Supplements

Suspicions about the long-term benefits of multivitamins have led to numerous studies over the years. Here are some highlights of the not-so-good studies on multivitamins.

Bad News for Breast Cancer

Although a study above indicates that it might be good for people who have breast cancer to take vitamins, this study suggests that multivitamin use might actually increase the risk for breast cancer in the first place. In a study of Swedish women, researchers found that multivitamin use increased the risk of breast cancer. Folic acid surfaced as a possible risk factor. Results from epidemiological studies have not confirmed this association.

Vitamin Supplements Offer No Benefits to People With Balanced Diets 

A found sparse evidence that vitamin supplements benefit people with balanced diets. A systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force also found that vitamin supplements failed to reduce cancer and cardiovascular disease risk in adults without nutritional deficiencies.

Vitamin Supplements Do Little For Memory

A long-term, randomized trial of cognitive function in men aged 65 years or older found zero differences in cognitive function between men taking a multivitamin and men taking a placebo. They used established tests to measure cognitive function and memory. Another study sought to test a connection with folic acid, B6, B12 and memory. Previous studies connected deficiencies in these vitamins with memory problems and confusion. They tested supplements on people with normal blood levels of the vitamins, and found no additional benefits after a three-year trial.

Vitamin Supplements Don’t Reduce Risk of Heart Attack

Researchers evaluated the benefits of a high dose multivitamin supplement in men and women with a history of heart attack. After nearly five years, the supplement group and the placebo group had the same number of cardiovascular events.

Why You Need to Do Your Own Research

Although vitamin supplements come in medicinal pill-like bottles, they aren’t regulated like drugs that are thought to be unsafe until proven otherwise. Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), supplements are assumed safe until proven otherwise.

• Drugs: need to be proven safe. The FDA approves of any new drug entering the market. Manufacturers must show evidence of a drug’s safety and ability to treat a condition based on clinical trials. Once a drug makes it to the market, the FDA monitors it for doctor-reported side effects and possible problems.
• Supplements: need to be proven unsafe. Dietary supplements can be sold if they don’t contain any ingredients that pose a significant risk when used as directed. So if a vitamin supplement incorporates a food substance that’s generally recognized as safe, no worries. If manufacturers wanted to use a completely new substance, they do have to show that it’s safe, but they don’t have to perform any clinical trials. The FDA can’t stop a company from selling a supplement until someone proves that it causes harm. So don’t assume something is safe just because it’s on a shelf. Since supplements aren’t tracked as closely as drugs, their interactions, side effects, and other consequences aren’t as readily noticed.

Hidden Vitamins

We have a lot left to learn about vitamin supplements before we can tell if they’re the answer to all of our problems. We do know they’re not one-size fits all. People with certain deficiencies and conditions benefit more from supplements than healthy people with well-rounded diets.

We also know that taking excess vitamins could be harmful, especially if they’re the fat-soluble kind that your body stores. But controlling your added vitamin intake might not be as simple as controlling your supplements. Many foods, like breakfast cereals and snack bars, are fortified to contain vitamins and minerals. Pair those foods with a max-dose vitamin supplement and you could be on your way to getting too much of a good thing. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group reports that about half of American kids consume harmful amounts of vitamins because they’re added to foods.

So think twice before reaching for a second bowl of those addictive Cocoa Krispies, especially if you already took a vitamin supplement. Also, keep in mind that vitamins are good for you, but you still need to be careful and smart with all dietary choices.

Resources

Primary

American College of Physicians: Enough is Enough: Stop Wasting Money on Vitamin and Mineral Supplements

Additional

Harvard School of Public Health: Supplement Studies: Sorting Out Confusion

Compound Interest: The Chemical Structures of Vitamins

Men’s Health Adviser: Do You really Need Those Vitamin Supplements? 

Mind, Mood & Memory: Straight Talk About Vitamin and Mineral Supplements For Memory

Nursing Standard: Women Being Treated For Breast Cancer Benefit From Vitamins

Trial: Over the Counter and Under the Radar

Nature Reviews Endocrinology: Vitamin Pills May Raise Cancer Risks

New Scientist: Pills Are Pointless

Web MD: Vitamins and Minerals: How Much Should You Take?

Scientific American: Fact or Fiction?: Vitamin Supplements Improve Your Health

Live Strong: Digestion of Vitamins and Minerals

Original Internist: To E or Not to E, That is the Question

Clinician Reviews: Who Will Benefit Most From Vitamin Supplementation?

Medical Daily: Vitamin D Benefits Are Enhanced if Meal Contains Fat; Absorbing More From Supplements

Gallup: Half of Americans Take Vitamins Regularly

American Cancer Society: FDA Regulation of Drugs Versus Dietary Supplements

Environmental Working Group: How Much is Too Much?

Environmental Magazine; Over-Fortified Processed Foods

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vitamin Supplements: Are They Worth It? appeared first on Law Street.

Cancer. Just one little word that sets hypochondriacs everywhere on edge. To some, the word means nothing but certain death. If that seems a little dramatic to you, guess what’s the second most common cause of death in the United States? That’s right, cancer.

What about the word “virus”? Scary…but not nearly as scary as cancer. It’s certainly not a word that evokes hope. But that may change as medical breakthroughs present a compelling question: can we use viruses to treat cancer?

How could we use viruses to cure cancer?

I know what you’re thinking. How can two negatives combine to achieve something as positive as a cure for cancer? The answer lies in your immune system.

Your immune system pinpoints a virus as a foreign invader, and works to eliminate it. Kind of like how our government would react to an alien spaceship entering Earth’s atmosphere.

On the other hand, your immune system has a harder time detecting cancer. Cancer cells share more characteristics with your own harmless cells than viruses. After all, cancer does originate from your own cells. It’s not in your body’s best interest to attack its own cells, so your immune system may overlook cancer as a threat. Kind of like how the government would react to a standard American aircraft filled with aliens. Seeing the aircraft as one if its own, they would leave it alone, and we’d have an invasion.

In summary, your immune system recognizes and fights viruses, but often not cancer.

So where does the cancer treatment part come in?

Our bodies can fight off viruses efficiently. What if we could hijack that fighting spirit and direct it towards cancer cells? What if we could manipulate our marvelous immune systems to fight off cancer?

That is the basis for how we may use viruses to treat cancer in a process known as oncolytic virotherapy.

Let’s go back to our surreptitious alien friends (cancer). They’ve made it into our atmosphere in their inconspicuous plane and are having a lovely joy ride when that alien spaceship (virus) joins them to transfer some of its passengers. Someone is bound to notice this suspicious activity and alert the authorities. Now the government (immune system), is wise to the presence of foreign invaders in both aircrafts and prepares for attack.

In oncolytic virotherapy, a virus infects a cancer cell. Distressed by this turn of events, the tumor cell releases cytokines which are really just messenger proteins. The cytokines raise the inflammation red flag and the immune system dispatches its sniper-like white blood cells to eliminate the source of inflammation–the infected tumor cell.

That was just one cell. What about an entire cancerous tumor? That’s where a virus’s prodigious replicating power is actually a good thing. Viruses don’t reproduce per se, but inject their own genetic material to commandeer host cells and replicate with their help. Replicating is a virus’s raison d’etre, host cells beware. After one cancer cell is successfully infected, the virus uses it as its replication puppet, consequentially infecting more cancer cells. So one transmission of a virus to a patient could cause destruction of many cancer cells and possibly an entire tumor.

To truly understand this process, take a moment to brush up on your viral replication knowledge. This video will help you out:

Will any virus work?

Any virus can infect and destroy a cancer cell, but it can also infect and destroy healthy cells. Successful oncolytic virotherapy requires a more selective virus–an oncolytic virus. The word oncolytic stems from oncolysis, which means the destruction of tumor cells. Oncolytic viruses are specifically attracted to tumor cells and leave your normal, healthy cells alone. This type of virus combats cancer cells without making patients sick.

That’s a new thing, right?

Yes and no. The concepts underlying virotherapy have been recognized for years. Doctors have pondered the use of viruses to treat cancer for more than a century as they discovered tumor remissions after viral episodes. As early as 1904, researchers noted a remission of cervical cancer in a woman given the rabies vaccination. But while early observations were strong, patient tests yielded erratic results. Then, technological breakthroughs took off in the 1940s and transformed oncolytic virotherapy from dream to possibility.

Scientists began studying genetic material in vitro by the 1970s, opening doors for new experiments and tests. The discovery of recombinant DNA technologies in the 1990s sparked an explosion of breakthroughs in genetic engineering. Genetic engineering took oncolytic virotherapy to new levels.

Genetically Engineering a Cancer-Killing Virus

Genetic engineering empowered scientists to devise oncolytic viruses with certain ideal characteristics for safer, more specific, and more effective oncolytic virotherapy. Scientists created viral vectors that target tumors in the body even more specifically than naturally occurring oncolytic viruses by isolating the human genes that code for tumor antigens. This heightened specificity diminished risk of infection in healthy cells and the toxicity witnessed in early murine (family of rats and mice) and human experiments was mitigated.

With engineered super viruses in tow, interest in oncolytic virotherapy soared.

Fear of engineered viruses  

Many find the concept of engineering viruses a bit on the scary side. I Am Legend, both the book and the movie, epitomizes distrust of viral engineering. The story features some possible side effects of tinkering with nature. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t go well for the people in this story.

But fear not, scientists aren’t cooking up a myriad of franken viruses in their labs unchecked. The field is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration with detailed oversight from the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee reporting through the Office of Biotechnology Activities. To conduct a human study, researchers have to file an investigational new drug application with the FDA. They must provide ample evidence of human safety from prerequisite lab and animal tests. Rest assured they are working hard to prevent a virus induced apocalypse.

Other than oversight…

What other government activities could possibly affect the future on oncolytic virotherapy? Well, if there’s one thing cancer research requires other than brilliant brains, it’s money. In that vein, organizations like the American Society of Clinical Oncology find the stagnant growth in federal funding for cancer research disheartening.

In fact, 75 percent of oncologists in the United States say that current funding slumps impact their ability to conduct cancer research. Check out this infographic from the American Society of Clinical Oncology that sums up the situation.

Even so, proposed legislation to invest in biomedical research, encourage innovation in biotechnology, and fight off the deadliest cancers proves confronting cancer remains a priority for representatives. It looks like the War on Cancer started by the Nixon administration in 1971 is still going strong today.

Does oncolytic virotherapy work?

Mayo Clinic announced a great success in oncolytic virotherapy last May. One nearly hopeless woman saw complete remission of her multiple myeloma after injection with the measles virus – enough to vaccinate 100 million people. Speaking of vaccines, Dr. Mark Federspiel actually came up with the proper concentration of the virus by building up a strain of the measles virus used safely in vaccines. Watch to find out how this success is giving doctors hope for a one-shot cure for cancer:

Hungry for more evidence? Check out Table 1 of this article for a list of published clinical trials in the field of oncolytic virotherapy. One major critique of the therapy is that lab successes often don’t translate to human trials.

What are we waiting for?

There are a few kinks to work out in the field of oncolytic virotherapy before the procedure gains mainstream acceptance.

Here are a few key hurdles:

• The explosion of engineered viruses created by pharmaceutical and biotech companies have presented scientists with more options than they have time or money to test. Furthermore, modifications come so fast, a state of the art engineered virus can quickly become obsolete.
• Treatment toxicities are always possible when using a virus to treat a disease. Healthy cells risk infection as even meticulously engineered viruses have the ability to mutate.
• Finding the right balance of immune suppression and aggression is difficult. The immune system must be weak enough to allow the virus to get to the host, yet also strong enough to combat the infected tumor once the virus has reached it.

Conclusion

A one-shot cure for cancer? Who wouldn’t love that? While it seems like a fairy tale, recent successes are creating buzz that we may be getting closer. Even if one shot doesn’t do it, many believe oncolytic virotherapy can be used synergistically with other cancer therapies to induce tumor remission.

Hope is the most important part of our War on Cancer. Hope drives us to continue fighting in the face of a daunting adversary. Is there reason to hope viruses may be used to treat cancer? Absolutely. Is further research and testing needed? Again, absolutely. The field of oncolytic virotherapy has made incredible progress since the first whispers began over 100 years ago. Surely the next century will bring more advancements than we can possibly imagine today.

Resources

Primary 

Cancer Research Institute: Cancer and the Immune System: The Vital Connection

Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology: Oncolytic Virotherapy

Additional

American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts & Figures 2014

Genelux: What is Oncolytic Virotherapy?

BBC: How Does the Body Fight Off a Virus?

American Cancer Society: Immunotherapy

The New York Times: Viruses Recruited as Killers of Tumors

UC San Francisco: Killing Cancer Through the Immune System

Clinical and Translational Oncology: Viruses in Cancer Treatment

Mayo Clinic: Harnessing Viruses to Treat Cancer

Dove Press: Applications of Coxsackievirus A21 in Oncology

Dove Press: Reovirus in Cancer Therapy: an Evidence-Based Review

NIH: Oncolytic virotherapy

Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute: Oncolytic Viruses for Cancer Therapy: Overcoming the Obstacles

BMJ: Fighting Cancer With Oncolytic Viruses

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fighting Fire With Fire: Can Viruses Cure Cancer? appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though the fake tanning trend is finally nearing its expiration date. Or at the very least, its legal limits. In recent months, multiple states have moved to restrict the ability of minors to access tanning beds. Teens under 18 in the states that have moved to legislate may need parents’ permission before indulging in the fake-UV rays, or be banned altogether.

Just a few years ago, tanning beds seemed ubiquitous for high school students looking to get a little more orange, despite that the dangers of tanning beds have been well known for years. Laws have always varied, but more states are moving toward banning minors outright, or requiring parental consent for those under 18. The American Cancer Society (ACS) tends to recommend the latter, highlighting the danger of tanning beds for young people. ACS South Dakota’s grassroots manager Carmyn Egge recently pointed out, “what we have found is that a person under the age of 35, who uses an indoor tanning device, their likelihood of getting a melanoma diagnosis [increases] by 59 percent.” Cindy Caneveri, of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network has cited similar statistics to the press, explaining:

Melanoma is now the second most common cancer for ages 15 to 29, and most common for ages 25 to 29. Melanoma is cumulative, so if you start out using a tanning bed [in your teens], you’re not seeing cancer until your late 20s.

States that have banned tanning completely for those under 18 include: California, Texas, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana. Delaware just recently passed a bill as well, although it won’t go into effect until 2015.

While the states above have banned teen tanning outright, some states are settling for restricting the ways in which teens can tan. This summer, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania making tanning tougher on minors. The Indoor Tanning Regulation Act took place last month, and banned anyone under 16 years old from using a tanning bed. It also required that 17 year olds have parental consent. A recently passed Missouri law is also cracking down on the ways in which teenagers can tan indoors. The state now requires that anyone under the age of 17 provide written permission from a parent before using tanning facilities.

The Indoor Tanning Association disagrees with the bans on younger people, pointing out that 16 year olds can drive, own guns, and in certain cases get married, so they should not be limited in their choices to engage in indoor tanning.

The laws, however, do make a lot of sense. Tanning can be a harmful alteration to your body, and it’s logical to leave the ability to consent up to adults. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal until an individual turns 18 and is no longer a minor. Skin cancer is actually more frequent at this point than lung cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 420,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed that can be traced back to indoor tanning. In comparison, a total of about 225,000 new lung cancer diagnoses were expected in the U.S. in 2014. While cigarettes and tanning beds carry very different types of carcinogens, the move toward restricting harmful activities for those underage is a traditional practice.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post States Saying No to Teen Tanning appeared first on Law Street.